Asks Wintery Knight: Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 23, 2018

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is the PR / spin definition of theistic evolution:

Evolutionary creation is “the view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.” This view, also called theistic evolution, has been around since the late nineteenth century, and BioLogos promotes it today in a variety of religious and educational settings.

And here is the no-spin definition of theistic evolution:

As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains it, the central issue dividing Bio-Logos writers from intelligent design theorists is BioLogos’s commitment to methodological naturalism (MN), which is not a scientific theory or empirical finding, but an arbitrary rule excluding non-material causation from the outset. “Unfortunately,” Meyer writes, methodological naturalism is a demanding doctrine. The rule does not say “try finding a materialistic cause but keep intelligent design in the mix of live possibilities, in light of what the evidence might show.” Rather, MN tells you that you simply must posit a material or physical cause, whatever the evidence.

What this means, according to BioLogos’s own epistemology, is that God is objectively undiscoverable and unknowable—a tenet that sits squarely at odds with Christian orthodoxy, which has for centuries held that God is clearly discernible in the natural world (e.g., Romans 1:20).

…

And for the record, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the standard Big Bang cosmology, and a 4.5 billion year Earth. My problem with evolution is not Bible-based, it’s science-based. If the science shows the need for intelligent causes, and I think it does, then I think that the naturalists need to adjust their assumptions and pre-suppositions to match the evidence. We have blog posts and computer science code, that’s evidence for a programmer. We have DNA and proteins and sudden origin of body plans, that’s evidence for a programmer, too. More.

We hope no one deludes himself that, in a contest of this type, orthodoxy is going to prevail.

File under: Church closers.

See also: Tyler O’Neil: Three views on origins supported by the text of the Bible

and

Faith and Science — the Confused View of the United Methodist Church

Comments

Allan Keith,
But if you think that BA’s “arbitration” was fair and nuanced, you have different definitions for fair and nuanced than I and the rest of the world do.
Really??? As Stein asked Dawkins, "there are 7 billion people in the world, how many have you spoken to?" Moreover, if you think that Newton was a TE you are as deluded and dishonest as jdk was. Newton is literally, as pointed out in post 40, the poster boy for Biologos, the leading TE organization in the world, and for Neil deGrasse Tyson for invoking "God of the Gaps". Moreover, as if that was not more than enough, and as ET pointed out in post 32, Newton added this to the third and final edition of Principia
“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.” -Isaac Newton "General Scholium (3rd edition of Principia) Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Latin for Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy),[1] often referred to as simply the Principia, is a work in three books by Isaac Newton, in Latin, first published 5 July 1687.[2][3] After annotating and correcting his personal copy of the first edition,[4] Newton published two further editions, in 1713 and 1726.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
Thus, it is not a question of whether jdk was dishonest about Newton, it is now a question of why jdk, and now also you, would be so dishonest towards the facts now in hand? That is just plain strange. But please do continue. It is quite humorous actually in that it exposes Darwinists as frauds with hardly any effort on our part. :) Kind of like watching Hitler self destruct in his final days:
Hitler reacts to the collapse of atheism and macro-evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8XeIXyh-zw
bornagain77_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

BA77,
That was nuanced and fair???
No. But, as my mother used to tell me, ‘two wrongs don’t make a wrong’. But if you think that BA’s “arbitration” was fair and nuanced, you have different definitions for fair and nuanced than I and the rest of the world do.Allan Keith_{April 28, 2018
April
04
Apr
28
28
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Allan:
We must not have been reading the same comment.
Your reading skills are very, very suspect. :razz:ET_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

AK, but when Dawkins stated this in his 'refined' English accent:,,,
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." - Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker)
That was nuanced and fair??? I guess it is just the English accent that makes it sound so smart when he says it. Small difference between Dawkins and Arrington too. Arrington is a lawyer who is trained, much like Phillip Johnson was (i.e. author of Darwin on Trial), to spot fallacies in arguments. Which actually is a very useful skill set to have when debating Darwinists. (And is one of the primary reasons Johnson was so successful in exposing the fraudulent tactics of debate, that Darwinists constantly use, to the general public) Whereas Dawkins is basically a teacher in the art of evolutionary propaganda.
Why a Law Professor Took Up Evolution - Phillip E. Johnson - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo0JXURn1Mo&index=14&list=PL3nZoKKpj8RKT_cOAsrYAwtTl6Izg0wyY&t=0s
bornagain77_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

BA,
So which is it? Is jdk really really stupid or a liar?
BA77,
Thanks Mr. Arrington. That was a nuanced and fair arbitration...
We must not have been reading the same comment.Allan Keith_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

jdk at 64, Now, Now, Now jdk. Don't let your feelings get hurt. Remember, the Eastern Mysticism you champion from time to time says that 'self is an illusion'. So the 'truth' is there is no "you" to have your feelings hurt in the first place. Your sadness is just an illusion from you believing that there really is a you to be sad in the first place. ,,, Get over 'yourself' already. :) Moreover, atheistic materialism is even more antagonistic to your claim that you are telling the truth and that you are not lying than your Eastern Mysticism is. Truth is, by its very nature, immaterial and therefore can have no material explanation. Moreover, as if that was not already bad enough, if Darwinian evolution were actually true then (the neuronal illusion of) you would have no reason to believe that any of your (illusory) beliefs might be true:
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Thus jdk, you can (in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) stamp your feet, pout and insist that you are not lying, but, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, you have no way of knowing which of you beliefs might be true in the first place. i.e. You have no way of knowing if you are lying or not! Not a good position to be in for someone trying to protest that he is being truthful. :) Moreover, since truth cannot possibly be based in the Atheist's naturalistic worldview, then it necessarily follows that "The Truth" must be based in the person of God.
Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw
Verse:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
bornagain77_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Devastating refutation of the facts, Jack- not. You are not even wrong. Good luck with thatET_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Barry, you don't even accurately represent my view about TE's or my point about the difference between Newton's position on science vs his theistic beliefs. And then you conclude I'm lying. You're wrong, and your inability to talk my points into consideration is inexcusable. Neither you or ba are worth my time, and that's the kindest thing I can say in public.jdk_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Besides the rampant "enlightenment" deception from atheists in academia, the claim that 'methodological naturalism' should be the 'ground rule' for science is another major attempted deception on the part of atheists in their effort to steal science away from its Christian moorings. Many scientists, including many scientists who personally believe in God, erroneously believe that methodological naturalism is the required assumption for doing science:
Methodological naturalism Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
In fact, the judge in the Dover case, who ruled against Intelligent Design being taught in schools, concluded that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today"
Methodological naturalism Excerpt: Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[21] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism
Yet, contrary to what many people believe, "Methodological naturalism is certainly NOT a 'ground rule' of science today". As Karl Popper clearly illustrated, the one ground rule in science that clearly demarcates whether a theory is scientific or not is whether the theory is falsifiable or not. In fact Popper said, “I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical.,,, is liable to turn into a dogma”
Karl Popper Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures. "A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method." —?Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9. Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Views
And on the issue of being falsifiable, Darwinian Evolution certainly does not qualify as being a valid scientific theory, since it has no clear criteria for falsification (based on a mathematical law).
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution 'cannot be refuted by any possible observations' and is thus “outside empirical science.”
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352 https://afdave.wordpress.com/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/
For anyone who has debated Darwinists, the fact that Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable should not be all that surprising. Any evidence presented to a Darwinist against Darwinian evolution being true is, for the most part, simply ignored or rationalized away by the Darwinist. As Dr. Cornelius Hunter notes
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-based-biochemistry-turning.html
Moreover, assuming methodological naturalism as the supposed ground rule for science, instead of protecting science from misleading lines of inquiry, actually leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science:
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification - 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Thus, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor of reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be. Science, and Scientists, should definitely stick with the Theistic worldview that brought them to the dance, i.e. Christianity:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.
bornagain77_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Thanks Mr. Arrington. That was a nuanced and fair arbitration that I, which should be no surprise since it went in my favor, hold to be extremely judicious. But to go further into exactly why I feel this is so important. Atheists have been, through deception, trying to literally steal science from Christianity since at least the second half of the nineteenth century.
James K. A. Smith on The Territories of Science and Religion - July 2015 Excerpt: There is no perennial conflict between “science” and “religion” because the phenomena didn’t exist to war with one another before the 17th century. But they do exist now, and if there is a conflict between them (now) it’s because “science” — the myth-making “science” invoked by “ideological atheists” — isn’t content to describe the territory; it’s after your heart. Thus Harrison closes by suggesting these “skirmishes” are less conflicts between science and religion and more like “theological controversies waged by means of science.” https://lareviewofbooks.org/review/a-therapeutic-cartography The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science - February 27, 2015 Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes: The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes. No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/02/27/the-two-guys-to-blame-for-the-myth-of-constant-warfare-between-religion-and-science/
In the following article, 'Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it', Peter Harrison notes that the warfare thesis between science and religion is wrong. Specifically he stated, “The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future.”
Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it - Peter Harrison - 2017 Excerpt: The 19th century also witnessed the inception of the ‘conflict model’ of science and religion. This was the view that history can be understood in terms of a ‘conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought – the theological and the scientific’. This description comes from Andrew Dickson White’s influential A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), the title of which nicely encapsulates its author’s general theory. White’s work, as well as John William Draper’s earlier History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), firmly established the conflict thesis as the default way of thinking about the historical relations between science and religion. Both works were translated into multiple languages. Draper’s History went through more than 50 printings in the US alone, was translated into 20 languages and, notably, became a bestseller in the late Ottoman empire, where it informed Atatürk’s understanding that progress meant science superseding religion.,,, Nor, despite its popular persistence, do most historians of science support the idea of an enduring conflict between science and religion. Renowned collisions, such as the Galileo affair, turned on politics and personalities, not just science and religion. Darwin had significant religious supporters and scientific detractors, as well as vice versa. Many other alleged instances of science-religion conflict have now been exposed as pure inventions. In fact, contrary to conflict, the historical norm has more often been one of mutual support between science and religion. In its formative years in the 17th century, modern science relied on religious legitimation. During the 18th and 19th centuries, natural theology helped to popularise science. The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future. Secularisation theory failed at both description and prediction. The real question is why we continue to encounter proponents of science-religion conflict. Many are prominent scientists. It would be superfluous to rehearse Richard Dawkins’s musings on this topic, but he is by no means a solitary voice. Stephen Hawking thinks that ‘science will win because it works’; Sam Harris has declared that ‘science must destroy religion’; Stephen Weinberg thinks that science has weakened religious certitude; Colin Blakemore predicts that science will eventually make religion unnecessary. Historical evidence simply does not support such contentions. Indeed, it suggests that they are misguided. https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it
And in the following articles, another atheist scholar of medieval history (Tim O'Neill), reveals that secular humanists have tried for several centuries now, because of their bias against Christianity, to rewrite history by characterizing the middle ages, where Christianity had come to dominate Europe, as 'dark' and backward. Where “the Renaissance” and specifically the enlightenment supposedly saved us from the dark ages of Christianity
Why Are the Middle Ages Often Characterized as Dark or Less Civilized? - Tim O'Neill, M.A. in medieval literature and has studied most aspects of the medieval period for many years: Excerpt: The idea of the whole Middle Ages as a "dark age" therefore actually comes from the early modern Renaissance and humanist movements and their denigration of their immediate forebears and idolization and idealization of the Greeks and Romans. Thus, the period between the Romans and this idealization in the early modern era became called the medium aevum—the "ages in the middle," or the Middle Ages. They became traditionally characterized as a backward step, where art became "primitive" (because only realistic art could be "good" art), architecture was "barbaric" or "gothic," and innovation was stagnant. These false ideas are still current partly because historians have only begun to revise our understanding of the Middle Ages quite recently and this is taking some time to seep into popular consciousness. But the prejudice against the Middle Ages is also driven by some strong cultural currents in our own time. Those with an animus against Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular like to cling to the old idea of the Middle Ages as a "dark age" because it suits their preconceptions about religion and forms a neat little fable where modernity is "good" and the medieval period is "bad." Historians avoid these simplistic value judgments and reject the assumptions on which they are made, but simple pseudo historical fairy tales are hard to budge. http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/01/15/medieval_history_why_are_the_middle_age_often_characterized_as_dark_or_less.html “THE DARK AGES” – POPERY, PERIODISATION AND PEJORATIVES - Tim O'Neill - 2016 Excerpt: The concept of “the Dark Ages” is central to several key elements in New Atheist Bad History. One of the primary myths most beloved by many New Atheists is the one whereby Christianity violently suppressed ancient Greco-Roman learning, destroyed an ancient intellectual culture based on pure reason and retarded a nascent scientific and technological revolution, thus plunging Europe into a one thousand year “dark age” which was only relieved by the glorious dawn of “the Renaissance”. Like most New Atheist Bad History, it’s a commonly held and popularly believed set of ideas that has its origin in polemicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but which has been rejected by more recent historians. But its New Atheist adherents don’t like to hear that last part and get very agitated when they do.,,,,, Concluding paragraph It should be clear by now that value-laden terms like “dark ages” and “Renaissance” belong to a period of dusty historiography that modern scholarship has long since outgrown. The very early medieval centuries certainly did see fragmentation, technology loss and the break down of long distance trade and an acceleration of the ongoing collapse of learning in western Europe. But to characterise the entire medieval period as a “dark age” because of this is clearly absurd. And while the nineteenth century idolisation of Classical art meant that they were inevitably going to see the art and architecture movement we call “the Renaissance” as “superior” to more stylised and native medieval forms, for anyone post-Picasso or Le Corbusier to do so is fairly philistinic. Anyone with even a passing grasp of history now understands that the Medieval Period was a long and diverse one thousand year span of remarkable change and development, in which Europe went from being a backwater that suffered most from the collapse of the Western Empire, to an economic, technical and military powerhouse that was on the brink of a global expansion. https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/
In fact, the false revisionist history of “the Renaissance” and the enlightenment saving us from the dark ages of Christianity is apparently so entrenched in left wing academia that President Obama, in his farewell address, falsely claimed that enlightenment thinking guided the American founders instead of Christian and Biblical principles guiding them as they actually did.
In His Farewell Address, President Obama Misrepresented the American Founding - January 11, 2017 Excerpt: "One thing he said about the American founding was especially troubling. Mr. Obama traced “the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders” to the Enlightenment. It was that movement, which he defined as “a faith in reason, and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might, that allowed us to resist the lure of fascism and tyranny during the Great Depression” and build a world order based on “the rule of law, human rights, freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and an independent press.” This spin is common in the leftist canon, but it is historical revisionism of the highest rank.,,, The wisdom of the Bible and the clarity of natural law gave the founding generation the guidance they needed to frame a government suitable for an imperfectible but dignified humanity characterized by moral self-restraint and “a firm reliance on Divine Providence.” The shout of defiance in the President’s farewell address, that man can be made perfect through human cooperation with the “arc of history,” runs counter to the philosophy of the founding of our country and the text of the Constitution." https://stream.org/in-his-farewell-address-president-obama/
A more realistic historical account of what 'enlightenment' thinking actually led to can be found in, not in America's founding, but in the The French Revolution and it’s Reign of Terror which launched the first modern genocide aimed at Christians and where 40,000 people were beheaded and 300,000 were butchered.
Solzhenitsyn Mourned Bastille Day. So Should All Christians. The French Revolution invented radical nationalism and socialism, and launched the first modern genocide, aimed at Christians. https://stream.org/solzhenitsyn-mourned-bastille-day/ How atheism led to horrors of French Revolution 01/10/2016 Bill Federer remembers words of wisdom from 19th century Yale president Timothy Dwight IV Excerpt: On July 4, 1798, Timothy Dwight gave an address in New Haven titled “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis.” In this address, he explained how Voltaire’s atheism inspired the French Revolution and it’s Reign of Terror, 1793-1794, where 40,000 people were beheaded and 300,000 were butchered in the Vendée: “About the year 1728, Voltaire, so celebrated for his wit and brilliancy and not less distinguished for his hatred of Christianity and his abandonment of principle, formed a systematical design to destroy Christianity and to introduce in its stead a general diffusion of irreligion and atheism.” http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/how-atheism-led-to-horrors-of-french-revolution/#1B3fDxTw5KBO9Ttb.99
bornagain77_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

I have been asked to arbitrate between jdk and BA77. jdk asserts that Newton was a sort of TE who never invoked God’s active continual causal influence in the universe and instead insisted that secondary causes accounted for all natural phenomena. Jdk is obviously wrong, and BA77 has attempted to set him straight. But jdk continues to insist on his position even after BA77 and others have provided overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The issue is this: BA77 says that when jdk clings to his hopelessly untenable position, he must be lying. Jdk says he is merely disagreeing, not lying, and insists that BA77 withdraw his claim. As for the underlying issue, no reasonable person can claim that Newton did not believe in God’s active and continual intervention in the world. Indeed, Newton’s suggestion that God from time to time tuned up the planets’ orbits in order to balance out all of the perturbations is probably the most famous example in the history of the world of god-of-the-gaps thinking. In light of that, jdk’s assertion and insistence on maintaining it are astonishing. When someone such as jdk continues to insist on a position after being corrected by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, what are we to do? Can we entertain the position that they are merely mistaken, or are we compelled to conclude they are lying? I have pondered this question from time to time. On the one hand, it is certainly possible that instead of lying jdk is just really really stupid and therefore incapable of grasping the implications of the evidence. I suppose it is possible that after being shown that he is spectacularly wrong about Newton, he is incapable of understanding. On the other hand, it is difficult to credit the argument that anyone is really that stupid. No reasonable person can continue to maintain jdk’s views on the matter in light of the evidence; therefore, the only viable conclusion is that he is rejecting the evidence in bad faith, i.e., lying. So which is it? Is jdk really really stupid or a liar? I cannot delve into jdk’s heart of hearts and know the answer definitively. But my best guess is no one is that stupid. He is denying a conclusion absolutely compelled by the evidence in bad faith, which is the moral equivalent of lying.Barry Arrington_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

The question in the title asks whether a person can believe in God and Darwinian evolution. A more appropriate question would be "should a person believe in God and Darwinian evolution" or "is it necessary for the person who believes in God to believe in Darwinian evolution?" The only appropriate motivation for a theist to accept Darwinian evolution would be if it has been established as true whether or not there is a God. And Darwinian evolution's only support is that it's the only atheistical option on the table. The question as stated would encourage us to ask whether God can do something that would appear paradoxical to our understanding if He particularly wanted to. Maybe - but why should we take refuge in such an ideology when the evidence for design is right before us?hnorman5_{April 27, 2018
April
04
Apr
27
27
2018
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

jdk
As to evolution, I’ll say again, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. The TE recognizes this distinction.
Darwinian evolution, which TEs accept, says that Evolution IS, not SEEMS, random. Again, TEs try to have it both ways. When they call on Darwin, they say that the process is random; when they call on God, they say it only seems that way.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

jdk
Stephen, you continue to make the conflation between evolution as understood by a materialist and evolution as understood by a TE.
No, I am not conflating anything. The TE's understanding of evolution's *mechanism* is exactly the same as the materialist's.
No, that’s exactly what TEs don’t believe. They believe that God’s creative power is present in every moment.
As I explained, they believe in two contradictory positions. God guided evolution and God didn't guide evolution. They are not rational <blockquoAs to evolution, I’ll say again, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. The TE recognizes this distinction. As I said above, either evolution's MECHANISM is driven by chance (Darwin) or is it driven by God's creative power (design). It cannot be both at the same time. Darwin's mechanism allows only for accidental outcomes. Guided evolution allows for intended outcomes. Evolution's outcome cannot be both intended and accidental. I don't understand why this point is so hard to grasp.
One last quote, from a TE friend, which makes my point: One commonly held perspective that tends to reinforce a conflict view of science and faith is that God’s action or involvement is confined to those events which lack a scientific explanation. Meaningful divine action is equated with breaks in chains of cause-and-effect processes. This view has been called a “God-of-the-gaps” theology. God’s creative action is seen only, or primarily, in the gaps of human knowledge where scientific description fails. With this perspective, each advance of scientific description results in a corresponding reduction in the realm of divine action. Conflict between science and faith is thus assured. However, this is a totally unnecessary state of affairs. God’s creative activity is clearly identified in the Bible as including natural processes, including what we call chance or random events. According to scripture, God is providentially active in all natural processes, and all of creation declares the glory of God. The evidence for God’s presence in creation, for the existence of a creator God, is declared to be precisely those everyday “natural events” experienced by us all. Thus Christians should not fear causal explanations. Complete scientific descriptions of events or processes should pose no threat to Christian theism. Rather, each new advance in our scientific understanding can be met with excitement and praise at the revelation of God’s creative hand. [my emphasis]
All this is irrelevant to the so-called "science" of evolution, which TEs claim to accept. This issue is the mechanism. Does it work to achieve the outcome intended by the creator (guided evolution) or does it produce an accidental outcome that was not necessarily expected (unguided Darwinian evolution). It can't be both at the same time, yet the TEs try to make it so. Again, I don't know why this point is so hard to grasp.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

One commonly held perspective that tends to reinforce a conflict view of science and faith is that God’s action or involvement is confined to those events which lack a scientific explanation.
There is quite a bit of that to go around but that doesn't make it so. For example there is a scientific explanation for how cells divide but that doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed.ET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

jdk
The TE rests his belief on the pervasive presence of God on both what his reason tells him about the observable world and what his faith tells him about the omni-everything God that is the Creator of the world. The TE would agree with Romans.
How can a TE, who relies solely on faith, agree that God's existence can be discovered through the use of reason?StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Stephen, you continue to make the conflation between evolution as understood by a materialist and evolution as understood by a TE. You write,
but they also say that Darwion’s naturalistic mechanism, acting alone and without God’s creative power
No, that's exactly what TEs don't believe. They believe that God's creative power is present in every moment. As to evolution, I'll say again, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. The TE recognizes this distinction. FWIW, my vacation is over, and real life starts up again, so I'm signing off these discussions, which have been interesting and, with one exception, civil, so thanks. One last quote, from a TE friend, which makes my point:
One commonly held perspective that tends to reinforce a conflict view of science and faith is that God's action or involvement is confined to those events which lack a scientific explanation. Meaningful divine action is equated with breaks in chains of cause-and-effect processes. This view has been called a "God-of-the-gaps" theology. God's creative action is seen only, or primarily, in the gaps of human knowledge where scientific description fails. With this perspective, each advance of scientific description results in a corresponding reduction in the realm of divine action. Conflict between science and faith is thus assured. However, this is a totally unnecessary state of affairs. God's creative activity is clearly identified in the Bible as including natural processes, including what we call chance or random events. According to scripture, God is providentially active in all natural processes, and all of creation declares the glory of God. The evidence for God's presence in creation, for the existence of a creator God, is declared to be precisely those everyday "natural events" experienced by us all. Thus Christians should not fear causal explanations. Complete scientific descriptions of events or processes should pose no threat to Christian theism. Rather, each new advance in our scientific understanding can be met with excitement and praise at the revelation of God's creative hand. [my emphasis]
jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

jdk
But Romans does not support nor disavow, ID, as the idea that scientific evidence could show that some things were specifically designed, and were in a separate category, so to speak, from the whole of the rest of the world, was not even an option at the time Romans was written.
Romans does not confirm ID's scientific hypothesis, but it does confirm the classical philosophical arguments for God's existence, which are consistent with the ID hypothesis, though not identical with it. Romans doesn't negate the ID position as it does the TE position. Thus, the ID position is more in keeping with Romans 1:20 than the TE position, which literally denies that God speaks through nature. ID agrees that nature speaks of a designer, but not necessarily the Creator God. Thus, it is close, though not identical, to the arguments in Romans 1:20.
The TE accepts that God’s creative power and will are responsible for the rainbow as well as the flagellum, but doesn’t see a reason to consider one “designed” and the other not.
Here is the problem: TEs say that God's creative power is responsible for the flagellum, but they also say that Darwion's naturalistic mechanism, acting alone and without God's creative power, is responsible for the flagellum. They cannot have it both ways. If God used an evolutionary process to bring the flagellum into existence, it follows that the evolutionary process that was used is designed (or programmed, or directed, or guided, or whatever) If God's creative power is responsible for the flagellum, (granting for the sake of argument that evolution is true), then evolution is being directed. If evolution is not directed (Darwin), then God's creative power is not in play.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

jdk @ 20: I get your point. I find myself largely incompatible with popular notions of "spirituality", so I'll just let those implications rest. ID, of course, cannot point directly to YHWH; the Bible has to be both sufficiently anomalous and consistent to point to Him independently; and, as I expect it does, such a concession wouldn't be entirely illogical if Darwin were ultimately vindicated. However, I find it unnecessary, and StephenB and ET's positions far more parsimonious and consistent with the text.LocalMinimum_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Sir Isaac Newton used science as a way of understanding God's handiwork. TE's do not. The quotes provided in 32 are exactly what we would expect to see from an IDist and not a TE.ET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

The General Scholium Newton’s agendas in natural philosophyand theology come together in the General Scholium, which he added to the second edition of the Principia in 1713. This tightly-written ... From there he moves on to discuss the structure of the solar system and the movement of bodies in the solar system without resistance according to the law of gravity. He then returns to one of the arguments from design he raised in his letters to Bentley, ..., Newton proclaims that “this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being”. For Newton both the initial design of an intelligent God and the dominion of a powerful Being are required for the universe he observed. ...His very next statement makes an additional point: “And if the fixed stars are the centers of similar systems, they will all be constructed according to a similar design and subject to the dominion of One, especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature as the light of the sun, and all the systems send light into all the others”. For Newton there is a direct relationship between the unity of God and the unity of creation. ... At this point Newton launches into a majestic description of the God he found in Nature and Scripture. This Being, Newton begins, “rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator”. Then follows an account of God’s eternity and omnipresence that is shot through with biblical language. Newton’s God is sovereign over time and space. This twofold sovereignty, Newton suggests, ultimately underpins all things in time and space: “All the diversity of created things, each in its place and time, could only have arisen from the ideas and will of a necessarily existing being”. ... At the end of the explicitly theological section of the General Scholium Newton writes: “This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of experimental philosophy” (changed to “natural philosophy” in the 1726 third edition of the Principia). Thus for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural philosophy, but rather are integral to it. [Snobelen, source - pdf]
Origenes_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Also, re 47: From "The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century edited by James A. Harris"
The only hint of such an argument in the first edition of the Principia is to be found in Book 3, proposition 8, corallary 5: 'God placed the planets at different distances from the sun so that each one might, according to the degree of its density, enjoy a greater or smaller amount of heat from the sun'. (Newton, 1999: 814ff) This is the only mention of God in the first edition of the Principia. The passage was reworded in the second edition and the mention of God was dropped.[my emphasis]
jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

JDK:
Again, ba, Newton is a theist, but he specifically says he does not make hypotheses about ultimate causes, including God, in his science.
You have issues, jack. the point was that Newton used science as a way to understand God's handiwork
Newton would be classified as a TE, not an IDist.
Wrong again. Read the quotes- Newton was definitely an IDistET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
Hypotheses non fingo (Latin for "I feign no hypotheses", "I frame no hypotheses", or "I contrive no hypotheses") is a famous phrase used by Isaac Newton in an essay, "General Scholium", which was appended to the second (1713) edition of the Principia. Here is a modern translation (published 1999) of the passage containing this famous remark: I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.[1] [1] Isaac Newton (1726). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, General Scholium. Third edition, page 943 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

jdk: Newton is a theist, but he specifically says he does not make hypotheses about ultimate causes, including God, in his science.
Where does Newton say this? I cannot find it. Reference please. How do you explain that, in the first edition of the 'Principia', Book III, Newton concludes, when he observes that the smallest and densest planets are nearest to the sun, that ...
...“God placed the planets at different distances from the sun so that each one might, according to the degree of its density, enjoy a greater or smaller amount of heat from the sun”.
Origenes_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Okie Dokie, especially after being corrected about Newton in post 40, I stand by my observation that you are lying about Newton. Arbitration requested.bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

re 44: No ba, you didn't "prove that I was lying". You just provided what you considered evidence for your position. It appears your attitude seems to be you are right, and when you state things everyone else should know that you are right, so if someone disagrees with you, they are lying (because you know that they really know that you are right.) That's obviously untenable. I don't know whether banning is in order, but I stand by my statement that I disagree with you, but am not lying, and I ask you to retract your accusation. If you want Barry to step in and offer his thoughts, that's fine with me.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

I proved that you were lying about Newton in post 40. I'll let Mr. Arrington arbitrate the matter if you disagree and will stand by his judgement of who to ban.bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

jdk @39
jdk: That’s the TE position.
What is? That "there is a being who made all things"? You do know that TE holds that life forms came about by a random process — instead of intelligent design — don't you? You do know that TE argues against intelligent design, right?Origenes_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

ba, you accused me of lying. I pointed out that I disagree with you, which is very different than lying, and in fact used a quote that you posted to support my argument. Can you explain why you think I am lying, as opposed to thinking I am wrong? I f not, would you retract your accusation?jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply